Oragnutan relationships

[BjB]

>> constructing phylogenetic hypotheses.  In any case, regardless of the
>> nature of
>> the data or the form of analysis, one cannot identify a character as a
>> synapomorphy until a phylogenetic hypothesis has been made (i.e., the
>> data
>> have
>> been used to construct a phylogenetic tree).
>


I've noticed confused over these terms.

Synapomorphies = Derived characters that unite two groups into a
monophyletic group after a phylogenic analysis.

Is there another term for derived characters that are shared between two
groups, before a phylogenic analysis?

Like using the term homology?

Homology = Synapomorphy + Homoplasy??????????????????????

Most texts use these terms interchangably.

Homology = Synapomorphy

However, I always felt that homology was THE same character between two
groups

Homology (truth) = Synapomorphy (hypothesis)

I once got chastized for listing shared derived characters as
synapomorphies, just like the beginning of this trend on Oragnutan
relationships and have always stuck to the saying "shared derived
characters".


--
___________________________________________________________
[:-> Benjamin John Burger                              <-:]
[:-> Division of Paleontology                          <-:]
[:-> American Museum of Natural History                <-:]
[:-> Central Park West at 79th Street NY, NY, USA      <-:]
[:-> bjburger at amnh.org                                 <-:]
[:-> http://paleo.amnh.org/bjburger                    <-:]
[:-> The AMNH fossil collection: http://paleo.amnh.org <-:]
___________________________________________________________